Planning Board Minutes - July 11, 2005

Those present at the July 11, 2005 Planning Board meeting were:

Planning Board Members: Steve Watts – Chairman
Rich Berkowitz
Marcel Nadeau
Tom Ruchlicki
John Higgins
Alternate
Planning Board Members: Daphne Jordan
Bob Beck
Dan McDermid

Planner: Jeff Williams

Town Attorney: Bob Chauvin
Deputy Town Attorney: Lyn Murphy

Town Board Liaison: Mindy Wormuth

CHA Representative: Bob Lockwood


Mr. Watts opened the July 11, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 7:04 pm. Mr. Watts asked the Planning Board Members if they have reviewed the June 27, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Berkowitz made a motion to approve the June 27, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Nadeau seconded. Motion Carried

Mrs. Jordan, Alternate Planning Board Member, will sit in for the Planning Board Member vacancy.

Mr. Beck, Alternate Planning Board Member, replaced Mr. Roberts in his absence.

Public Informational Meeting:
05.138 PIM Arlington Heights, Farm to Market Road – Major Subdivision/PDD
Mr. Chauvin recused himself from this item. Mr. Ruchlicki recused himself from this item and Mr. McDermid replaced him. Mr. Watts opened the Public Informational Meeting at 7:05 pm. Mr. Watts asked if anyone would like to have the Public notice read. No one responded. Mr. Gordon Nicholson, of Environmental Design Partnership, is representing Belmonte Builders for Arlington Heights Major Subdivision/PDD. Mr. Nicholson stated the following: This application was first presented to the Town and approved by PDD resolution number 6 in 1999. At that point the site consisted of approximately 25.1-acres and was proposed for 50 housing units. The PDD legislation had a sunset provision by which it expired after a 5-year time frame and when it was originally approved by the Town, it was conditioned upon getting an access permit across the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction of wetlands. The applicant was not able to secure this permit. Over a period of time the applicant has purchased property to gain access and has added it to the proposed PDD. The PDD proposal was presented to the Town Board and then referred to the Planning Board. The difference between the original application and the current application is there are 2 less lots and 1.25-acres were added to the site. They are preserving 3.2-acres of wooded open space and wetlands along Farm to Market Road. The street trees, lighted sidewalks and open space will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association. They will be connecting the Saratoga County Sewer District; there will be on-site storm water management and out-of-district water. They propose to give a $1,000 per unit to the Town of Halfmoon in furtherance of the comprehensive plan in the GEIS. There are no endangered species on-site. Mr. Watts asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. Mr. John Arzoumanian, of 347 Farm to Market Road, stated he resides at the southwestern side of the proposed development. There are high wires going across the land and would like to know where the houses will be built. Mr. Nicholson stated the vegetation would remain undisturbed. Mr. Arzoumanian stated he was worried about safety and privacy for his children and asked if they propose a privacy fence or a buffer to segregate the two properties. Mr. Nicholson stated they have not proposed anything at this point, but they will take this into consideration with a more detailed site plan process. Mr. Nicholson stated they were before the Planning Board tonight for a recommendation to the Town Board for the PDD legislation but they would be happy to consider Mr. Arzoumanian’s request. Ms. Rosemarie Wysocki, of 362 Farm to Market Road, stated the proposed project will be located to the rear of her property and asked if the easement for the storm water could be explained further. Mr. Nicholson stated the following: The easement would come out of the northwest corner of the property to a bed and bank stream. The storm water would be managed on-site in a basin that is owned and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. The area would be landscaped and it is an overflow that runs through a drainage ditch down into the adjacent stream. The storm water management system would be constructed by utilizing Best Management Practices and designed to State and Federal regulations. Ms. Wysocki asked if the natural lay of the land is to go downhill, how will they direct the storm water so it doesn’t go into the back valley. Mr. Nicholson stated it could be constructed to either a swale or it can be piped. This would be included in a more detailed site plan issue and this is something they would consider. Ms. Wysocki asked which way the storm water would flow as this could end up in the trout stream and how will it be mitigated. Mr. Nicholson stated the following: The on-site system is designed to control water quality leaving the site, the volume of water leaving the site to prevent downstream erosion and prevent downstream siltation. There is a sedimentation basin that is divided into compartments. The first compartment catches the water and the sediment then the water goes to another compartment and eventually overflows. The ideal way for this basin to function would be to recharge the storm water back into the adjacent ground. Ms. Wysocki asked if the trees would remain between the two properties along the southern border. Mr. Nicholson started he believed the trees would stay or they would be selectively cleared and if they want a no-clearing or selective-clearing buffer during site plan review this would be acceptable. Ms. Wysocki asked if there are proposed trails in this project. Mr. Nicholson stated they have proposed a loop sidewalk within the development and will be maintained by the HOA. Ms. Wysocki asked about the lighting that is proposed for the project. Mr. Nicholson stated they propose the same site detailing as was approved by the Town in the 1999 original application; there would be Victorian period lighting, street trees, open space, maintenance program and sidewalks. Ms. Wysocki stated the proposal is for a Town Benefit of $1,000 per lot for GEIS fees and there is some sort of fees with the GEIS that is closer to $3,000. Mr. Nicholson stated he was not personally involved in the negotiations with the Town but he believes because the PDD was previously approved that it is exempt from the GEIS. Mr. Nicholson stated that in consideration of a Public Benefit the applicants are going to donate $1,000 per unit to the Town in furtherance of the GEIS concepts and the comprehensive plan. Ms. Wysocki asked if there has been any consideration to lower the speed limit on Farm to Market Road. Mr. Nicholson stated this was either of Town of County consideration and this is something that she could approach the Town as they have no control over that. Mr. Nadeau stated that the Planning Board looked into this years ago and the County felt that there was no need for a change to the speed limit at that time. Ms. Wysocki asked if the HOA would be aware that the adjacent property is farmed and she hopes the Town would back the farming rights on the adjacent property. Mr. Nicholson stated he assumes the Town would and that the HOA would be aware of the adjacent farmland. Mr. Watts stated the following: The Town would back the right to farm if someone has an active farm in the area. It is the choice of the people who are purchasing the property and they should look around to see what is actively going on in accordance with zoning in the immediate area. Mr. Nicholson stated the following: He wanted to point out to the people who live in the neighborhood that the previous site entrance did meet sight and stopping distance but the new proposed entrance is a much better solution for a site entrance on Farm to Market Road. A traffic engineer reviewed and studied the proposed entrance and they have a report that indicates that this meets all of the standards for sight and stopping distance at that location. Mr. Rex Grathwol, of 345 Farm to Market Road, asked if the existing trees would remain. Mr. Nicholson stated there would be no trees near the power line but trees will remain in other areas and in the open space. Mr. Grathwol asked if once the new homeowner moves in would they be able to remove the trees. Mr. Nicholson stated that there are certain restrictions that can be placed in the deeds or in the PDD legislation or in conjunction with the site plan approval that control either the size of the trees, the amount of the trees or the location. Mr. Grathwol stated that some people think that land without houses are suitable dumping sites and could anything be done to stop this from happening. Mr. Peter Belmonte stated the following: The HOA would take care of maintenance of the grounds and landscape and this should not be a big concern. There would be one particular company that would be doing all the lawns in the community at one time and they will haul away their own debris. If Mr. Grathwol did see this happening to contact him, as he is the Board of Directors of the HOA, and they will approach the individual and ask them to stop the dumping. Mr. Grathwol asked if the back lawns would also be mowed. Mr. Belmonte stated that a single company that is under contract with the HOA would mow all of the lawns. Mr. Watts closed the Public Informational Meeting at 7:22 pm. Mr. Higgins if there is an existing easement for the retention pond outlet. Mr. Belmonte stated not officially. Mr. Higgins stated that this is something that the Town Attorney would have to review. Mr. Gerry Magoolaghan, of Belmonte Builders, stated that the easement is under verbal agreement but the documents have not yet been filed. Mrs. Murphy stated that until the Town’s Engineers look at the easement and give it an approval it would not be necessary to get the documents in writing as there may have to be modifications based on the engineer’s recommendations.
This item was tabled and referred to CHA for review.

Old Business:
04.117 OB Kevin Hedley Professional Office Building & Retail Plaza,
1593 & 1595 Route 9 – Commercial Site Plan
Tricia Millington, of MillWest Engineering, proposed a site concept for a commercial site plan for Kevin Hedley Professional Office Building project located at 1593 & 1595 Route 9. Ms. Millington stated the following: They proposal is to combine two adjacent existing parcels into one parcel creating a retail building and a professional office building. The site has been designed to comply with all the zoning regulations. They propose to link to the existing sewer line across Route 9. If this is not feasible they will submit a septic site plan within the project limits. Storm water retention will be contained in the rear of the site. They have increased the green space along the road frontage to improve the esthetics and will exceed the green space requirements in accordance with the zoning regulations. Mr. Kevin Hedley, the applicant, stated the following: The proposed parcel is located between Phelan’s Banquet House (to the south) and Catricala Funeral Home (to the north). On the other side of Catricala’s Funeral Home there is a strip mall that is a little larger than the building they proposed to build. Mr. Nadeau asked how close the detention area was to the stream. Ms. Millington stated the stream is located at the edge of the property. Mr. Berkowitz asked if this project is approved would they be building in phases. Mr. Hedley stated the following: They proposed to build a 4,000 SF office for his. When the office building is completed and they receive a C.O., his current office would be removed and the parking lot would be completed. He will stay in his currently office building until the other building is in place. Mr. Berkowitz asked if there was any way that some of the parking could be shifted to the side or behind the other building to hide some of the parking. Mr. Higgins asked if the building could be shift the building and put the parking in the rear. Mr. Hedley stated if they were to shift the building then the rear building would be close to the front building that would block visibility and the tenants who will rent a storefront will want to have as much visibility as possible. Mr. Hedley stated by having the buildings face Route 9 there would be maximum visibility for all the storefront. Mr. Higgins stated they are trying to avoid having the parking in the front of the buildings. Mr. Hedley stated this is why they have proposed green space for the front of the property. Mr. Higgins stated that there was another project that has been before the Board and they placed the buildings closer to Route 9 and have put the parking in the rear so it presents a more esthetic view as you travel along Route 9. Mr. Berkowitz stated they are trying to make the area more esthetically pleasing by having the building facing Route 9 in front and the have the parking in the rear of the building. Mr. Hedley stated he appreciated what the Board was saying but the difficulty then would be that you would now have an odd shaped building and the stores would have a long rectangular storefront. Mr. Berkowitz stated the conflict is the Board wants the building up front rather than the parking and Mr. Hedley wants to maximize the space and would like to come to a compromise. Mr. Watts asked what Mr. Hedley’s original proposal was. Mr. Hedley stated that it was strictly an office building and the parking went around the building. Mr. Watts asked what kind of retail businesses would they be looking for. Mr. Hedley stated a few businesses in the area that are interested in coming to this proposed location. Mr. Hedley stated that one is a restaurant and one is a clothing store. Mr. Nadeau stated the restaurant business could take up the entire parking area and if it is a fast food type of restaurant the Board would not like to see traffic coming in and out of the site constantly. Mr. Watts stated that they have proposed parking spaces that are less than 10 x 20 FT. and the legislation for parking is 10 x 20 FT. Mr. Hedley stated they would make all the parking spaces 10 x 20 FT. Mr. Watts stated the following: The Town has a certain amount of latitude to have 9 x 20 FT. spaces wherein traffics is not moving in and out of those spaces. The 9 x 20 FT. spaces could be used for employees parking who worked by parked in those spaces up to 8 hours. The 10 x 20 FT. parking spaces could be used for people coming in and leaving the site. Ms. Millington asked if it would help if they relocated one of the buildings and moved the parking spaces to the rear. Mr. Berkowitz suggested rotating the front building 90 degrees. Mr. Hedley stated that they did have those conceptual plans as well. Mr. Ruchlicki asked how many storefronts are proposed for the 150 FT. wide building in the rear. Mr. Hedley stated about 5 storefronts. Mr. Ruchlicki stated that other facilities along Route 9 that are similar to this proposal have signs out front and the people traveling by look at those signs and not the storefront signs. Mr. Hedley stated that the tenants of these storefronts pay for their sign and would like to have then seen. Mr. Ruchlicki suggested that if the buildings were squared up and relocated then the parking could be moved to behind the buildings. Ms. Millington stated she was not sure if the front building could be shifted and keep Mr. Hedley’s office running. Mr. Nadeau stated the proposal shows a total 38 percent green space for the site and asked what is the percentage of the green space in the front verses what they have in rear of the site. Ms. Millington stated she did not know. Mr. Nadeau stated that the green space in the rear appears larger than what is in the front of the site and the Board would like to see more green space in front. Ms. Millington stated that the reason there is more green space in the rear is because the site slopes toward the rear so they have concerns with the storm water and she doesn’t feel the green space in the rear could be made any smaller. Mr. Nadeau stated the following: These building might be too large for that lot. The Board is looking at this proposal as something that the applicants have filled to the maximum and this might be the reason why the Board is having problems in trying to make this proposal work. Mr. Hedley stated that they could free up a lot of space by making changes in the parking with the 9 x 20 FT. space in the front section for the employee parking. Mr. Watts stated the following: There are issues and concerns to discuss further before the proposal is referred to CHA at this point. A committee will be established who will meet with the applicant to discuss these issues and concerns. The committee review team will consist of Mr. Ruchlicki and Mr. Higgins.
This item was tabled for review by the committee review team.

04.245 OB Halfmoon Development PDD, Stone Quarry & Plank Road –
Commercial/Residential Site Plan/PDD
Mr. John Brosco, of Chasen Companies, is representing Amedore Homes. Mr. Brosco stated the following: At the June 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting there was concern whether or not there are wetlands on the site. He consulted State wetlands mapping and found that there were no State wetlands on the site. They also consulted Federal wetland maps and could not find any Federal wetlands. This does not mean that there are no Federal wetlands. Chasen Companies intend to perform an investigation into the wetlands as part of the final site design into that issue. Since the Board was concerned about this at the last meeting, the applicant has authorized wetlands delineation and that is going to take place this week. There were concerns about the traffic impact study and he requested their traffic consultant to forward the traffic report to Region 1 of the Department of Transportation. They are before the Board requesting a recommendation to the Town Board for the PDD zoning change and the waiver of the 10-acre minimum lot size for a PDD. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Lockwood if he had looked at the traffic study. Mr. Lockwood stated CHA has looked at the traffic study and they concur with the findings of the traffic study but the DOT might take a different view. Mr. Watts stated that the traffic and the wetland delineations were concerns that the Public had with this project and these issues are being addressed. Mr. Watts stated the Board is at the point for a recommendation to the Town Board for the mixed use PDD. Mr. Nadeau stated the Board’s recommendation would be affected if there is a wetlands situation and the legislation of the PDD would have to show this. Mrs. Murphy stated the Town Board will be the lead agency regarding SEQR and the applicant will need to submit all needed information prior to the Town Board making a determination regarding SEQR. Mr. Brosco stated he would submit the wetlands information to the Town Board as soon as he receives it.
Mr. Berkowitz made a motion for a positive recommendation for the Halfmoon Development PDD to the Town Board with the applicant’s knowledge that they are preceding at their own risk with the wetlands investigation. Mrs. Jordan seconded. Motion carried.

05.137 OB Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Route 236 & Betts Lane - Sign
Mr. Mark Haskins, representing the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, proposed a sign application for the Kingdom Hall. Mr. Haskins stated the following: They had submitted the sign application several months ago and the Board had stated that they had to look into some legalities of the sign proposal. The main reason they are looking for a two-sided sign is that the current sign is difficult to see when driving by the Kingdom Hall. The sign would be more visible if they had a two-sided sign that was placed perpendicular to the road. They are looking at the safety concerns of their visitors who pass by the location and have to turn around. Mrs. Murphy stated the following: She has reviewed the current application as to whether it was identical to another sign application that was previously presented to the Board that the Board had denied and it is not the same sign application. There have been lengthy discussions about previously meetings in regard to reason for the regulations on the sign that the applicant consented to at the time they presented their site plan proposal. Mr. Watts stated that the current proposed sign application does not meet the technical requirements of an institutional sign. Mr. Higgins stated the following: When the applicant originally came before the Board, the Board looked at the original site plan and he recalls that the representatives from the Kingdom Hall organization stated they didn’t need a sign as they had the same people coming back to the congregation week after week and they knew where they were going. The representatives stated that if the congregation became too large they would have to build another hall. There were discussions in the beginning about the restrictions that the Board is under as far as the size and nature of the types of signs that are allowed in this classification. Mr. Haskins stated the following: He was not present during those original discussions. A majority of the people are from the congregation but every week they have a speaker that come from different congregations and there are also new people that will come. These people are the ones that have a hard time as they drive up with the one-sided sign. Mr. Watts suggested to Mr. Haskins that he send a letter to the Town relative to the zoning sign regulation issues if he feels the current sign is too small under the current standards to lobby for a change. Mrs. Murphy stated the following: For clarification, she doesn’t think that Mr. Watts is telling Mr. Haskins that this is his recourse based on this Board’s action. Mr. Haskins would need to look into this himself. Mr. Watts is giving Mr. Haskins a suggestion as to something else that he may want to do.
Mr. Nadeau made a motion to deny the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses sign application due to the proposed sign exceeding the maximum allowed area for Institutional signage of 15 SF. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

05.164 OB Dudek Dairy Farm, Brookwood Road – Major Subdivision
Mr. Chauvin recused himself from this item. Mr. Gerry Gray, of Ingalls and Associates, is representing Mrs. Barbara Dudek for the Dudek Dairy Farm Major Subdivision application. Mr. Gray stated the following: They have previously been before the Board requesting a minor subdivision of 33.2-acres of land to be conveyed to Carver Sand and Gravel. At the Board’s recommendation he has made mapping and discussed with Mr. Williams past subdivisions involving this parcel. They have addressed all the Board’s issue and are open for comments.
Mr. Berkowitz made a motion to set a Public Hearing for the July 25, 2005 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Ruchlicki seconded. Motion carried.

05.175 OB Halfmoon Family Dental, 1456 Vischer Ferry Road – Commercial
Site Plan
Mr. Walt VanDeLoo, of Walt VaDeloo Consulting Engineers, is representing Dr. Gary Swalsky, DDS who operates the Halfmoon Family Dental Practice. Mr. VanDeLoo stated the following: He is before the Board to obtain approval for the relocation of Dr. Swalsky’s dental practice to 1456 Vischer Ferry Road. The parcel is located within the Professional Office/Residential (PO/R) district. The proposed office building is approximately 3,200 SF. They are proposing to continue the use of the existing residential structure on the property to be used by Dr. Swalsky’s parents. The site improvements are parking, relocation and modifications to the driveway and storm drainage. The building area on the site will be approximately 10% where 20% is allowed. The paved area would be approximately 24% and the green space will be approximately two-thirds of the site. All setback requirements can be met. Mr. Nadeau stated he would like to know where the adjacent landowner’s wells and septic systems are located. Mr. VanDeLoo stated he would provide that information. Mr. Watts stated there is an issue regarding the mixed residential/commercial use in the PO/R district. Mrs. Murphy stated the following: Pursuant to the Town’s local laws a mixed use is permitted in a PO/R. There is one classification area in the Town where the Board has discretion, should it feel it is beneficial to the Town and the surrounding area, to allow for a mixed use. It is encouraged through the legislation to have a blending of uses in that area. Mr. VanDeLoo stated that Dr. Swalsky’s intention is to reinforce the residential character of the area. Mr. Nadeau asked about the curb cut and asked if Vischer Ferry Road is a County Road. Mr. VanDeLoo stated that it was State highway and their intent is to try to see how the curb cut would line up with the Country Drive-In across the street.
This item was tabled and referred to CHA for review.

New Business:
05.152 OB Halfmoon Suites, 2A Executive Park Drive – Addition to Site Plan &
Sign
Mr. Tim Connelly, owner of #2 Halfmoon Executive Park, proposed an addition to site plan application. Mr. Connelly stated the following: The building was fully occupied when he purchased it 3 years ago. At that time he came to the Town to verify the building was a code complying structure and the occupancy was up to the Town’s standards. He met with the Town’s Planning Department and the only issue they were aware of at that time was that the owner failed to landscape the property as promised. He met with the Town’s Building Department to make sure all the tenants were occupying the building legally and he was told they were. There were 3 tenants in the building; TBM who occupy the space closest to Route 9 on the first floor and two-thirds of the lower level. TBM is a firm that sells employee benefits.
The mid section of the building is a small insurance company that only occupies the first floor. The third section of the building is another insurance company that occupies the first floor and the lower level. He was told everything was code compliant. He requested C.O.’s to make sure everything compliant. The Town went to inspect the property and all was fine and he closed on the property. (Mr. Connelly submitted copies of the C.O.’s the Board). TBM had outgrown their space, he built a new building at #4 Halfmoon Executive Park, and TBM has been relocated to that building. He advised the Building Department his desire to separate the office space and he secured building permits to have one tenant on the upper level and another tenant on the lower level in the office that TBM previously occupied. He incurred approximately $45,000 worth of expenses to separate the tenants by putting restrooms on the lower level and separated heating and air conditioning systems. He listed this space as office suites for users who have on-the-road salespeople or construction people. He reviewed with the Building Department the required codes and found out because of the square footage of lower level that handicap accessibility was not an issue and complied with the Fire Code with one means of ingress/egress. He was not satisfied with the one means of ingress/egress he cut a door in the lower level in the rear of the property for a second means of egress for a safety factor. When they made application for signage for Halfmoon Suites it was then discovered that the original owner submitted a site plan for a single story building not a two level building. The Planning Department indicated that they never knew the original owner had offices on the lower level, as it was suppose to be used for storage only. He is now trying to correct the previous owners wrong and he is now showing a two-story building with the required 27 parking spaces. Of the 27 parking spaces, 2 are handicap accessible, 22 of the spaces are 9 x 20 FT. and the balance of the parking spaces are 10 x 20 FT. There is 38% green space. Mr. Watts stated the following: At this time the Board is not prepared to take action based upon the information that has been provided. On the advice of the Town’s Attorney the Board is going to research the background files, minutes, change of tenants, etc. for 2A Executive Park Drive. Mr. Connelly stated that a further delay causes undue financial hardship that he feels he should not be subject to. Mr. Watts stated the Board is not prejudging anything at this point and they will look at the entire site and make sure that it is in compliance.
This item was tabled to research past approvals, tenant changes, building permits and C.O.’s.

05.176 OB Napa Auto Parts, 1663 Route 9 – Sign
Mr. Bryan Pisarski, owner of Napa Auto Parts Store, stated the following: He is before the Board to apply for additional signage on his building. Mr. Williams advised him the proposed sign is in compliance with the Town’s sign ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that he had talked with Mr. Roberts and he did not see any problem with the sign application as the proposed sign is well below the allotted signage and there would be no exposed neon.
Mr. Nadeau made a motion to approve Napa Auto Parts sign application. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

05.177 OB Hair Salon, 1 Vale Drive – In-Home Occupation
Ms. Danielle DeVoe proposed an In-Home Occupation Hair Salon located at 1 Vale Drive. Ms. DeVoe stated the following: She would have one workstation for herself with no employees. There would also be a dryer chair, storage room, a handicap accessible restroom and handicap accessibility. There would be room for 8 vehicles in their driveway so there would be no need for on-street parking. She plans to work 3 days a week-Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday 10:00 am. to 7:00 pm. She books by appointment only. She will have one customer per hour. Mr. Nadeau asked what would be stored in the storage room. Ms. DeVoe stated hair color and hair products. Mr. Nadeau asked if these products would be sold to her customers. Ms. DeVoe stated no. Mr. Watts asked if this would be in a residential neighborhood. Ms. DeVoe stated yes. Mr. Watts asked if this was a single-family home. Ms. DeVoe stated it was a two-family home. Mr. Watts asked what surrounded the property. Ms. DeVoe stated the property has a duplex with trees along the side. Mr. Watts stated that there might have been an issue relative to the use of this type of business in a residential neighborhood. Mrs. Murphy stated that in order to be able to accurately answer the concerns of the Planning Board, she is going to need from the applicant more of a description with regards to the actual layout of the home and the portion of the home that will be utilizing together with the parking. Mrs. Murphy stated the Town’s zoning requirements have specific standards with regard to how much space would be utilized for an In-Home Occupation and this could not be determined by this application.
This item was tabled for the Planning Department and Town Attorney to review the use as a Home Occupation and asked the applicant to submit details on the design of the salon compared to the residential home.


Mr. Nadeau made a motion to adjourn the July 11, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 8:23 pm. Mr. Ruchlicki seconded. Motion carried.



Respectfully submitted,

Milly Pascuzzi
Planning Board Secretary